The Heart's Witness Against Muhammad: Safiya and the Law of Booty

By Andrew M. Greenwell, Esq.
10/23/2012
Catholic Online (www.catholic.org)

Safiya, in fact, is an example of how Muhammad had different categories of relationships with women

Muhammad's sexual behavior and his multiple marriages are not the kind of thing we would expect in someone whom was supposedly revealed as a perfect human being and prophet of God. Some of Muhammad's sexual behavior and treatment of women, however, goes even beyond what is unseeming to what is clearly abhorrent under any standard of civility and morality, modern or ancient. The story of Muhammad's relationship with his wife Safiya bint Huyayy ibn Akhtab is one such incident.

Facebook Delicous MySpace

Twitter Stumble Digg

More Destinations

CORPUS CHRISTI, TX (Catholic Online) - As we discussed in our last article on Muhammad, the sheer number of marriages and concubines that Muhammad had sexual relations with offers sufficient evidence of a man who did not conform himself to the natural moral law in regard to marriage and family life. Apologists for Muhammad's life find themselves in losing battles trying to justify this aspect of their alleged prophet's life.

As we mentioned in our last article, Muhammad lived a life of clear monogamy with his first wife Khadija, but after her death engaged during the last ten years of his life in relationships with other women of a variety of categorizations, but all of which have one common denominator: Muhammad had sexual access to these women.

According to the Islamic scholar Montgomery Watt, Qur'an 33:50 (a supposed revelation which addresses Muhammad's unique law of marriage and sexual relations separate and apart from the law of marriage allowed to Muslims in general), describes a number of categories of women who were sexually allowed to Muhammad. These included: (i) wives for whom Muhammad paid ujur [dowry or hire] (ii) those "whom your right hand possesses--whom Allah has given to you," meaning captives of war or slaves, (iii) the daughters of paternal and maternal uncles and aunts (i.e., cousins), (iv) those who emigrated with Muhammad, (v) believing women who gave themselves to the prophet, provided the prophet wanted to marry them, and (vi) a privilege special for Muhammad apart from the other believers, the khalisatan la-ka min dun al-mu'minin.

Muslim apologists defend Muhammad's multiple sexual relations by arguing that he was not motivated by lust, but rather by pure motives. This seems disingenuous in light of the evidence to the contrary. According to Muslim sources, Muhammad seems to have been afflicted with a voracious sexual appetite or perhaps merely delusions associated with it. It is hard to tell, and the sources appear to conflict. Either way it is unseemly.

For example, we might cite to the hadith evidenced in Sahih Bukhari and related by Muhammad's wife 'A'isha : 07.71.660: "Magic was worked on Allah's Apostle so that he used to think that he had sexual relations with his wives while he actually had not . . . ."

There is evidence, however, that there was something that mere magic here and mere delusions. In Sahih Bukhari (01.05.268) we read: "The Prophet used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number. I asked Anas, 'Had the Prophet the strength for it?' Anas replied, 'We used to say that the Prophet was given the [sexual] strength of thirty (men).' . . . ."

There is further evidence that Muhammad lacked control in the area of the sexual urges. Three hadith found in Sahih Muslim suggest impulsivity. As reported by Jabir, Muhammad once saw a woman who sexually fascinated him and captivated his heart, "retiring in the shape of a devil." So he went home to his wife Zainab as she was tanning leather and had sexual intercourse with her to relieve himself of his desire. His instructions to his Companions were that when any of them were to have such an urge he "should come to his wife, for that will repel what he feels in his heart." 08.3240, 08.3241, 08.3242.

Muhammad's sexual behavior and his multiple marriages are not the kind of thing we would expect in a perfect human being and supposed prophet of God. Some of his sexual behavior and treatment of women, however, goes even beyond what is unseeming to what is clearly abhorrent under any standard of civility and morality, modern or ancient. The story of Muhammad's relationship with his wife Safiya bint Huyayy ibn Akhtab is one such incident.

Safiya was a seventeen-year-old Jewess who lived in the town of Khaibar with her husband Kinana bin al-Rabi' bin Abu'l-Huqayq. After Muhammad's troops captured the city of Khaibar, Muhammad ordered Kinana to be tortured to death to make him reveal where the treasure of the town was kept. (For those who might be curious, no doubt with the instructions or approval of Muhammad, Khaibar was tortured by having a fire lit on his chest and then killed by decapitation.) (Ibn Ishaq, pp. 515-17)

According to the Muslim biographer of Muhammad Ibn Ishaq, after Muhammad and his followers captured the town of Khaibar, Safiya would have been led past the bodies of her Jewish tribesmen, which would have included the mutilated and decapitated body of her husband, Kinana. Safiya displayed tremendous control and behaved stoically, unlike her cousin whose sorrow so consumed her that she was inconsolable, and Muhammad, irritated by her crying, called her a she-devil and asked her to be taken away from him.

It ...

1 | 2 Next Page

Rate This Article

Was this helpful to you? Very Helpful Somewhat Helpful Not Helpful at All

Would you be interested in more articles like this? Yes, I am Interested No, I am not Interested

Rate Article

1 - 9 of 9 Comments

Kathy
7 months ago
Benedictus..you are a muslim. No christian would ever call muhammad as a "prophet" because he was never such thing: he killed, lied, slaughtered, terrorised, maimed,abused, raped, cummited theft, adultery, poligamy, pedophilia, bestiality, amongst many other horrible things, all unproper of a prophet of god.he also never gave any pophecies or performed any miracles:that really shows what he is all about an islam, doesn't it?
Andrew M. Greenwell
7 months ago
@Benedictus. The article does not distort the truth, but presents a fair depiction of Muhammad as related in the Qur'an, the Sunna, and the Sira. Those who follow Muhammad's wrongful moral behavior engage in wrongful moral behavior. The fact that Muhammad engaged in wrongful behavior does not excuse the wrongful behavior, although ignorance may mitigate the subjective guilt of the actor.

Vatican II did not say a word about Muhammad. Nowhere did it suggest that what Muhammad taught was true. Nowhere did it hold him out to be a good example, a trustworthy moral teacher, or inspired.

In Vatican II, the Church tried to focus on those aspects of Islam that are positive: (1) belief in one God, (2) belief in the final judgment, (3) belief in God's mercy, (4) acknowledgment of Jesus (but only as a prophet, a gross error), and (5) they venerate Mary. This is hardly a wholesale endorsement of Islam as a system.

On the moral life, the Church pointed out those aspects of Islam that are morally commendable: (1) prayer, (2) charity, and (3) fasting. It certainly did not approve the entire morality of Islam by selecting and pointing out those aspects that are good,

The Church did not hold Islam to be an Abrahamic faith, rather it noted that the Muslims "profess to hold the faith of Abraham." To profess to hold the faith of Abraham is different from actually holding the faith of Abraham. I can profess to be innocent of a crime even while guilty of it.

It should be noted that the Catholic Church teaches that no human being will be saved as a result of Islam or the teachings of Muhammad, but, if any such one is saved by the grace of God, it will be despite the teachings of Islam and Muhammad, The Church teaches, and will always teach, what St. Peter proclaimed almost 2000 years ago: salvation must be in Christ and his Church: "Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)
Benedictus Quebecensis
7 months ago
This article is a distortion of the truth and a calumnious attack on the Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him). It suggests by inference that Muslims who follow the teachings of the Qur'an with regard to Muhammad and who are guided by the Prophetic Traditions (ahadith) that have come down to them are just as contemptible as the author makes out Muhammad to be. Such an inference conflicts with the plain teaching of the Catholic Catechism on Muslims.

"841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. 'The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God,
mankind's judge on the last day'."

Source:

Surely, if the author is correct, it follows that Muslims in obeying and venerating Muhammad have failed in their obligation to hold in high regard the moral life. However, Vatican II teaches that Muslims do indeed hold in high regard the moral life. The Council declared:

"The Church regards with respect the Muslims, who worship the One, Living, Subsistent, Merciful, Almighty God who created the heavens and the earth, who spoke to men. They strive to submit wholeheartedly to God's commandments...even as Abraham submitted himself to God, whose obedience is often recalled in the Islamic religion. Although they do
not recognize Jesus as God, they do venerate him as a prophet and they honour his virgin mother, Mary.... They await the Day of Judgment, when God will reward all those risen from the dead. THEY HOLD IN HIGH REGARD THE MORAL LIFE and worship God, particularly by prayer, charity and fasting."

The Catholic priest and erstwhile theologian Hans Kung put it this way:

"If the Catholic Church, according to the Vatican II “Declaration on Non-Christian Religions”, “regards with esteem the Muslims”, then the same church must also respect the one whose name [Muhammad] is embarrassingly absent from the same declaration, although he and he alone led the Muslims to pray to this one God, for through him this God “has spoken to humanity”....
Andrew M. Greenwell
7 months ago
@Tom: To be sure, the Old Testament, even the patriarchs, engage in some behavior that is not perfect. Abraham's relationship with his slavewoman Hagar, for example, or David's actions with Bathsheba, or Solomon's concubines. You mention Judith. Even in the New Testament there is human failure, e.g., Peter's denial of Christ or Juda's betrayal of Jesus. I would say a number of things regarding these. First, the activity of these figures' behavior when it deviated from the natural law or the Commandments was never held out as something we should imitate. Usually, they are pointed out as faults. For example, I do not think either in Judaism and certainly not in Christianity that Abraham's relationship with Hagar was used to justify concubinage as virtuous. Abraham is set out as an example of faith, not relationships with slave women. He has never been held out as someone to justify concubinage. Second, there is a certain gradualism in revelation, where doctrine and morals are progressively purged of foreign or immoral elements. So, for example, marriage. Whereas some of the patriarchs seem to have accepted polygamy, by the time of Christ monogamy had become the norm among the Jews. In Muhammad' time, the Jews in Arabia were monogamous, and one of the criticisms the Jews levied against Muhammad was that he seemed to love women, was polygamous, and that such behavior was unseemly if not contradictory to his claim to be a prophet. Finally, the Old Testament stories must be understood within the light of the revelation of Christ and Christ's sublime example and sublime teachings. Understood in Christ, the deviations or failures certainly lose any moral normative quality since they have to be understood within Christ's teachings. The problem with Muhammad is that his deviations are literally understood to be normative, exemplary, and virtuous. The traditionalist Muslims reasoning is this: Muhammad sets the standard. Nothing he did or taught as wrong. Case closed. The natural law be damned.
Gregorio
7 months ago
This is a fenomenal honest article about the REAL islam,the real muhammad..thanks for posting it and keep them coming.people need to be educated about the absolute danger and evil muhammad is, was and always will be with all his false doctrines and self-aduling false and evil religion of islam.
MaryAnn
7 months ago
Wow. I knew he was bad but I didn't know he was completely amoral. I never understood how a murderer could be a prophet of the Abrahamic God. He basically broke ALL of the 10 commandments not to mention doing the complete opposite of the teachings of Christ.

Clearly he is not a prophet, just a psychopath. It's too bad that 2 billion people or so are willing to follow him into darkness.
mitchel
7 months ago
I found this article very interesting because I know very little about the prophet Muhammad
Tom McGuire
7 months ago
We do need more understanding of the history of Islam. We also need more understanding of our own history. Abraham and Sarah had some problems so Hagar was brought in to solve the problem; he position in the family did not meet the standards of "natural law".

Judith beheaded Holofernes after some time in a relationship that did not meet the conditions of "natural law".

Has the author explored these examples in the Old Testament?
Tommy
7 months ago
and don't forget the hadith
Volume 1, Book 4, Number 229:
Narrated 'Aisha:
I used to wash the traces of Janaba (semen) from the clothes of the Prophet and he used to go for prayers while traces of water were still on it (water spots were still visible).

I guess uncontrollable urges could account for this

Comments submitted must be civil, remain on-topic and not violate any laws including copyright. We reserve the right to delete any comments which are abusive, inappropriate or not constructive to the discussion.

Though we invite robust discussion, we reserve the right to not publish any comment which denigrates the human person, undermines marriage and the family, or advocates for positions which openly oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This is a supervised forum and the Editors of Catholic Online retain the right to direct it.

We also reserve the right to block any commenter for repeated violations. Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.

We ask that you NOT post your comment more than once. Catholic Online is growing and our ability to review all comments sometimes results in a delay in their publication.

Name *

Email *

Comment *

Send me important information from Catholic Online and it's partners. See Sample

Post Comment